LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – third party reports – investigation into cyber-attack – whether primary judge erred as to dominant purpose in finding that reports not subject to legal professional privilege – whether documents were created, commissioned or obtained for the dominant purpose of legal advice – grounds of appeal not sufficiently arguable to warrant grant of leave to appeal LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE – waiver of privilege – whether public statements made were inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality in the reports – treatment of public statements about the existence of findings, recommendations and implementation steps as sufficient to amount to an inconsistency with the maintenance of confidentiality absent any disclosure of the substance or gist of the privileged communications – waiver turns on inconsistency, not merely on the fact of reference to a privileged process
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2026/2026fcafc0038For more information, see the original judgement.
